SandySandfort on August 22, 2010, 08:07:31 pm
If what they sell is insurance, it's hard to get away from my reasoning. The more customers, the more their conditions average out and the more predictable your income and expenses. A small insurance company can make other assumptions but their wrong assumptions will come back and bite them in the ass.

Re-insurance, dude. Don't you know anything? Big and small insurance companies re-insure with their competition all the time. It's really no different than bookies laying off bets with other, competing bookies.

terry_freeman on August 22, 2010, 11:44:57 pm
A little history goes a long way toward curing the fantasies of lazy people.

Once upon a time, a vigorous blend of "friendly societies" took care of insurance needs, and did so much more cheaply and efficiently than today's largely government-entangled efforts. You can look it up.

Even today, there are groups of people - such as the Amish - who find that their version of the "friendly societies" works very well.

In many Asian societies, voluntary cooperatives take care of all the "safety net" functions which certain intellectually lazy westerners assume must be accomplished by government.



J Thomas on August 23, 2010, 12:03:53 am
A little history goes a long way toward curing the fantasies of lazy people.

Once upon a time, a vigorous blend of "friendly societies" took care of insurance needs, and did so much more cheaply and efficiently than today's largely government-entangled efforts. You can look it up.

Good thought! So if it was done in a "friendly" way instead of by capitalist rules, it might be cheap and efficient.

Scott on August 23, 2010, 01:26:28 am
In a free market, services might be provided by a variety of types of organizations: for-profit, religious non-profit, secular non-profit, co-operative, mutual, fraternal, etc. The common characteristic is they are all voluntarily organized and funded.

I read a few weeks back that there's a doctor in the state of New York who is taking patients on a subscription basis -- that is, for something like $100/year, he will see all subscribers and provide basic medical services for no additional fee. Obviously he can't offer specialized services but he has plenty of patients who love the arrangement. But the insurance industry is not happy and the state health insurance board was, at the time the story was written, trying to shut him down for running an "unlicensed insurance scheme." I don't know what the outcome of that story was, but it reflects the fact that free people can find solutions to sticky problems so long as the state stays out of the way.

terry_freeman on August 23, 2010, 06:40:32 am
Capitalist rules are friendly. Statism is not. The first relies upon voluntary cooperation; the second upon the barrel of a gun.

SandySandfort on August 23, 2010, 07:53:12 am
Capitalist rules are friendly. Statism is not. The first relies upon voluntary cooperation; the second upon the barrel of a gun.

Ever noticed how movies portray gun stores? They are grim placed filled with grim-faced white men making derogatory comments about... well everything. Contrast that with real gun stores or shooting ranges. In my experience, they are filled with men, women and kids of all races. They mix without regard to any of these "differences" and eagerly swap suggestions and experiences. There is a great deal of friendly humor and banter. And there is less crime than any other business.

BMeph on August 23, 2010, 11:30:56 am
Capitalist rules are friendly. Statism is not. The first relies upon voluntary cooperation; the second upon the barrel of a gun.

Ever noticed how movies portray gun stores?

How about this:
"Statism relies upon only the people in charge having a gun."

My voluntary gift to you...because "the first one is always free...".  ;)

terry_freeman on August 23, 2010, 11:50:48 am
I used to go to the range frequently in Los Angeles area. Blacks, whites, hispanics, Asians, all mingled together. You could talk to anybody, ask for advice, even borrow a weapon. Kind of blows away the "hateful redneck stereotype."

I often wore a Pink Pistols shirt, and brought a number of gays, lesbians, transgendered folk, and friends to the ranges. Nobody ever gave us any grief. Folks stopped by to chat. My dark-skinned Colombian bf got a free lesson - and danced a jig when he hit the bulls-eye on his first try.

J Thomas on August 23, 2010, 11:56:11 am
In a free market, services might be provided by a variety of types of organizations: for-profit, religious non-profit, secular non-profit, co-operative, mutual, fraternal, etc. The common characteristic is they are all voluntarily organized and funded.

Sure. noncoerced, markets are allowed to be free along with everything else.

It's capitalism if the means of production are owned by private individuals and not governments. That does not imply noncoercion.

But if government is coercive by definition, then a noncoercive society cannot have government and therefore cannot have government ownership of the means of production.

So noncoercion implies capitalism, but capitalism does not imply noncoercion.

macsnafu on August 23, 2010, 01:41:47 pm

So noncoercion implies capitalism, but capitalism does not imply noncoercion.


Perhaps you meant to respond to Terry, not Scott. Scott's post didn't even mention "capitalism", just free markets.  I would say that "free market" does imply non-coercion.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Brugle on August 23, 2010, 01:45:54 pm
It's capitalism if the means of production are owned by private individuals and not governments.
There is no commonly accepted precise definition of "capitalism", and your definition is especially unclear since "means of production" is so vague.  (The most important means of production is human ability.)  Is there any reason to introduce such a useless (assuming you're not a historian of economic thought studying Marxist apologetics) definition here?

Most of us are interested in understanding, not obfuscation.

So noncoercion implies capitalism, but capitalism does not imply noncoercion.

"Coercion" is another word that has multiple common meanings which statists often combine deceptively.  But I'll assume that you are using "coercion" to mean something like "the initiation of force", as "force" is typically used in libertarian-oriented discussions.  I'll use "capitalism" to mean "an economy without government interference".  In that case, your quote is true, but so what?  Ending government interference in the economy will obviously not eliminate all crime.

I think you've been told this before.  Please don't recycle cluelessness.

J Thomas on August 23, 2010, 07:23:55 pm

So noncoercion implies capitalism, but capitalism does not imply noncoercion.


Perhaps you meant to respond to Terry, not Scott. Scott's post didn't even mention "capitalism", just free markets.  I would say that "free market" does imply non-coercion.

Yes, you are right.

wdg3rd on August 23, 2010, 09:57:10 pm
Capitalist rules are friendly. Statism is not. The first relies upon voluntary cooperation; the second upon the barrel of a gun.

Ever noticed how movies portray gun stores? They are grim placed filled with grim-faced white men making derogatory comments about... well everything. Contrast that with real gun stores or shooting ranges. In my experience, they are filled with men, women and kids of all races. They mix without regard to any of these "differences" and eagerly swap suggestions and experiences. There is a great deal of friendly humor and banter. And there is less crime than any other business.


Here in Jersey, it varies.  The ones in the NYC metro area (Bergen, Hudson and Essex counties) are pretty grim and if they have a range that range is filled with folks I'd rather not socialize with (cops).  Gun shops further out are a bit more friendly.  In general, I prefer to go out of the area.  Like over to Pennsylvania (no, not near Philly) or north of Massachusetts.  New York ain't bad as long as you're well away from the Five Boroughs that make up the "City" -- that means a buffer of at least two counties.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

ContraryGuy on August 26, 2010, 11:59:31 am
Capitalist rules are friendly. Statism is not. The first relies upon voluntary cooperation; the second upon the barrel of a gun.

Boy, where have you been?  Capitalism is friendly?  You must not have read any history, or any of the recent business magazines.
Capitalism is winner-take-all, cutthroat competition that tends towards monopoly and the utter destruction of all rivals.  And thats *with* government supervision.

The Gilded Age of Laissez Faire Capitalism was not called The Age of the Robber Barons for nothing you know.  I take it that you have never heard of Standard Oil Co.

Or Enron.

The reason that government rules on business exist is because business has been shown that it cannot regulate its own behavior.
This fundamental truth will not change if, all of a sudden, there is no government, no laws, no regulation.
Some in this forum will say 'if a business did that, the people would turn to a competing business and the offending business would die.'  If thats not ignorance of the reality of the marketplace I dont know what is.
That kind of ignorance is akin to saying 'without human interference, a lion will no longer kill wildebeest'.

Just because you have a friendly agreement with a local store that you frequent often and whose owner knows you and treats you with respect does not mean *all* capitalism works that way.
Business owners are friendly.  Capitalists are not.

SandySandfort on August 26, 2010, 03:05:28 pm
None of your examples are free market, laissez faire capitalism. "Winner-take-all" is a totally political phenomenon. Someone must lose if someone else wins. In market "democracy," any number of "candidates" can win. That is why we have so many choices, even in an only relatively free market. My 2. I will let Terry chew you a new one on the details, if he is so inclined.

Capitalist rules are friendly. Statism is not. The first relies upon voluntary cooperation; the second upon the barrel of a gun.

Boy, where have you been?  Capitalism is friendly?  You must not have read any history, or any of the recent business magazines.
Capitalism is winner-take-all, cutthroat competition that tends towards monopoly and the utter destruction of all rivals.  And thats *with* government supervision.

The Gilded Age of Laissez Faire Capitalism was not called The Age of the Robber Barons for nothing you know.  I take it that you have never heard of Standard Oil Co.

Or Enron.

 

anything